On 16 August 2012 11:42, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:22:21AM -0400, Ed Maste wrote:
>> On 15 August 2012 19:12, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote:
>> > This is easy enough, so it seems worthwhile now that FreeBSD is starting
>> > to make more use of the "userspace switch".
>> >
>> > CC: Ed Maste <ema...@freebsd.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
>> > ---
>> > lib/dpif-netdev.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
>> > 1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/lib/dpif-netdev.c b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
>> > index 3d01b17..144b6b6 100644
>> > --- a/lib/dpif-netdev.c
>> > +++ b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
>> > @@ -70,8 +70,13 @@ enum { MAX_QUEUE_LEN = 128 }; /* Maximum number of
>> > packets per queue. */
>> > enum { QUEUE_MASK = MAX_QUEUE_LEN - 1 };
>> > BUILD_ASSERT_DECL(IS_POW2(MAX_QUEUE_LEN));
>> >
>> > +struct dp_netdev_upcall {
>> > + struct dpif_upcall upcall; /* Queued upcall information. */
>> > + struct ofpbuf buf; /* ofpbuf instance for upcall.packet. */
>> > +};
>> > +
>> > struct dp_netdev_queue {
>> > - struct dpif_upcall *upcalls[MAX_QUEUE_LEN];
>> > + struct dp_netdev_upcall upcalls[MAX_QUEUE_LEN];
>> > unsigned int head, tail;
>> > };
>> >
>> > @@ -259,10 +264,8 @@ dp_netdev_purge_queues(struct dp_netdev *dp)
>> > struct dp_netdev_queue *q = &dp->queues[i];
>> >
>> > while (q->tail != q->head) {
>> > - struct dpif_upcall *upcall = q->upcalls[q->tail++ &
>> > QUEUE_MASK];
>> > -
>> > - ofpbuf_delete(upcall->packet);
>> > - free(upcall);
>> > + struct dp_netdev_upcall *u = &q->upcalls[q->tail++ &
>> > QUEUE_MASK];
>> > + ofpbuf_uninit(&u->buf);
>> > }
>> > }
>> > }
>> > @@ -960,13 +963,13 @@ dpif_netdev_recv(struct dpif *dpif, struct
>> > dpif_upcall *upcall,
>> > {
>> > struct dp_netdev_queue *q = find_nonempty_queue(dpif);
>> > if (q) {
>> > - struct dpif_upcall *u = q->upcalls[q->tail++ & QUEUE_MASK];
>> > - *upcall = *u;
>> > - free(u);
>> > + struct dp_netdev_upcall *u = &q->upcalls[q->tail++ & QUEUE_MASK];
>> > +
>> > + *upcall = u->upcall;
>> > + upcall->packet = buf;
>>
>> Doesn't upcall->key still point into the static buf from upcalls[] in
>> this case?
>
> Yes. We've copied that buf into the function's argument and transferred
> ownership of its data to the caller. The next time the static buf gets
> used it will be reinitialized with a newly allocated data buffer.
Ahh, of course. This looks good to me.
-Ed
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
